Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 18 of 57 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 426 to 450 of 1422
  1. #426
    Prefers Cicero cooker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    My Bikes
    1984 Trek 520; 1990s Peugeot (Canadian-made) rigid mountain bike; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others
    Posts
    8,522
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul L.
    I actually think it is kind of cool to be hearing all this from the source. I also find it amusing to see certain similarities between apples and trees.

    Assuming it actually is Forester behind that user name of course.
    Who else could generate that verbiage in that length of time - and that's a compliment.
    Last edited by cooker; 03-15-07 at 05:05 PM.

  2. #427
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul L.
    Well, first, I don't believe I stated it was a highway. The second one was if it makes a difference. As for making it safer, it gives the kids a boundary or guide to help them hold their line.
    Lines are nice for guidance on a road. Straight lanes and turn lanes help traffic flow better by getting people into the right area of the road at the right time. Probably one of the biggest issues with most bike lanes is that they go against the normal vehicular lane setup in that they are designated as a straight lane for cyclists while the lane adjacent is a straight/right/left turn lane for vehicles in that lane. No where else on the roadways is this setup used and no where else would it be tolerated for full width vehicular lanes. Yet, when these lanes are installed for cyclists, cyclists applaud them. The bike lane to the left of a right turn only lane is less problematic but on many roads, it would be impossible to implement this type of facility. It does not completely eliminate the problem of turning traffic having to cross a lane that is not a normal vehicular traffic lane, but is designated as a straight lane for cyclists, to turn right.

    I'm pretty certain that your 4 year olds were not doing shoulder checks or merging out of the bike lane at intersections to avoid right hooks, thus using the bike lane as the vehicle code suggests bike lanes be used (most as far right as practicable laws have exceptions for places where right turns are authorized). If they were, I applaud your teaching (not that I don't applaud you for riding with your children anyway but I still do feel the need to point out the issues with assuming that simply staying to the right of the bike lane stripe automatically makes one safe).

  3. #428
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skanking biker
    1. Every freeway i've ever seen has a sign that says no bikes allowed. Others also ban mopeds and other slow moving vehicles.
    Just an FYI, almost all of the interstate freeway system in Oregon is open to cyclists, except within the corporate boundaries of the City of Portland and a small segment in Medford.

  4. #429
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul L.
    Well, first, I don't believe I stated it was a highway. The second one was if it makes a difference. As for making it safer, it gives the kids a boundary or guide to help them hold their line. What age do you think you cannot teach a cyclist to ride better than most adults? I recall you mentioning 8. I wish only to point out that with a clearly marked border in some cases (I do not advocate 4 year olds on the side of 55 mph highways) that age could be lowered. I realize you probably don't care about folks with crazy ideas about riding with their children on roads and not pushed back onto MUPs but some of us do. Some of us see the statistics about Bicycle Inferiority complexes and believe that perhaps the road isn't as dangerous as everyone thinks it is for bicyclists as long as they ride predictably. I find that bike lanes help my 4 year olds to do this. Question for you John, is a 4 year old who rides predictably with an adult present just as safe from rear end collisions? Seems like if the statistics work they either work or don't don't they?


    Oh, and is that a truck I see giving us some extra room? hmmmm
    And also, you don't need to be snide about it. If you can't see this as a reason for bike lanes just say so. It makes perfect sense to me. I don't know if you have any 4 year olds but something tangible they can see constantly is much easer to follow than some inane piece of logic that will slide out of their minds with the next butterfly. Come to think of it I know a few adults who are like this too.

    Aw crap, well if you can be snide I will too. Is Vehicular Cycling for the cyclists or cyclists for the Vehicular Cycling? Are only people who are capable of understanding the concept of VC to be allowed on the streets? Do we expulse all other users who may have similar desires but desire to use them in a different way (of course this concept has been stated repeatedly only to be called superstitious and rot so I don't know why I am repeating it)? I can tell you that as my kids grow older they will see me avoiding garbage outside of bikelanes at high speeds and will even stray onto the forbidden narrow 2 lane highway as we find those lonely highways of the western deserts but for now, a line is most helpful. Why can't we just use all the resources at our disposal and admit there are riders of differing ability out there and always will be? Not every driver is nascar certified, not even every driver has been through drivers ed. Would it be good if they were? yes. Would they be able to understand the concepts of traffic better and how to drive in it more efficiently? Yes. Do they? No.. Ok, I am good and done now. Belittle me at your leisure.

    Incidentally the logic about lines making people safe seems to hold true for cars. Does a double yellow line keep a motorist safe from head on collisions? Does a fog line establish the edge of the road where asphalt and natural earth are the same color?

    Roads and streets are part of the highway system. The term highway does not exclude street.

  5. #430
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skanking biker
    1. Every freeway i've ever seen has a sign that says no bikes allowed. Others also ban mopeds and other slow moving vehicles.

    2. Your argument here is a simple syllogism which can easily be proven false.
    a. All vehciles have the right to use any roadway
    b. A bicycle is a vehcile
    c. therefore, all bicycles have the right to use any roadway
    --Logically, then, the following must also be true
    a. All vehciles have the right to use any roadway
    b. A (plane/train) is a vehicle.
    c. Therefore all (planes/trains) have the right to use any roadway
    In no state vehicle code is a plane or train defined as a vehicle. Interstates prohibit slow moving vehicles (any type, not just cyclists). Interstates were designed for uninteruptted vehicle flow and thus don't lend themselves to being easily used by slow moving vehicles. Many states allow cyclists to use interstate shoulders when there are no reasonable alternatives.

    Because the ban includes all slow moving vehicles and the alternative routes are generally more direct, it's much easier to tolerate than cyclist-only bans, like those on some local bridges into New Jersey..

  6. #431
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    2,209
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by randya
    Just an FYI, almost all of the interstate freeway system in Oregon is open to cyclists, except within the corporate boundaries of the City of Portland and a small segment in Medford.

    Oh, I don't doubt there are---I just haven't seen them

  7. #432
    Senior Member Paul L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    My Bikes
    Mercier Corvus (commuter), Fila Taos (MTB), Trek 660(Got frame for free and put my LeMans Centurian components on it)
    Posts
    2,601
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    I'm pretty certain that your 4 year olds were not doing shoulder checks or merging out of the bike lane at intersections to avoid right hooks, thus using the bike lane as the vehicle code suggests bike lanes be used (most as far right as practicable laws have exceptions for places where right turns are authorized). If they were, I applaud your teaching (not that I don't applaud you for riding with your children anyway but I still do feel the need to point out the issues with assuming that simply staying to the right of the bike lane stripe automatically makes one safe).
    On this particular ride all the turns were right turns and there didn't happen to be any right hand turn lanes we had to negotiate past. As far as doing a full VC merge, I will admit I don't think they are up to that. At those intersections we would likely dismount and use the crosswalk.

    I was riding with a mirror and was letting them know when traffic was approaching.
    Last edited by Paul L.; 03-15-07 at 05:12 PM.
    Sunrise saturday,
    I was biking the backroads,
    lost in the moment.

  8. #433
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    2,209
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    In no state vehicle code is a plane or train defined as a vehicle. ..

    Exactly my point. B.R. was using a dictionary definition of "vehicle" to support his argument, which, if applied literally leads to absurdities. I was simply trying to indicate that the fact that a bicycle is defined as a "vehcile" in the dictionary is not really relevent because there are a number of other objects defined as "vehicles" that cannot use the roads.

  9. #434
    Loved by m0ds Pete_Fagerlin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    272
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    Roads and streets are part of the highway system. The term highway does not exclude street.
    Damn. I need to move. My street is now a highway.

    What is odd is that when I look at the map of the National Highway System, my street isn't on it.

    Weird. Something must be amiss.

  10. #435
    Senior Member Paul L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    My Bikes
    Mercier Corvus (commuter), Fila Taos (MTB), Trek 660(Got frame for free and put my LeMans Centurian components on it)
    Posts
    2,601
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    Roads and streets are part of the highway system. The term highway does not exclude street.
    Dang, I tried I really tried not to bite on this one but just for the sake of debate, is the 100 foot long section of street in front of my house called a highway? I know what you are getting at though. We are arguing semantics in a forum that should be about Advocacy and Safety so I will stop at this point.
    Sunrise saturday,
    I was biking the backroads,
    lost in the moment.

  11. #436
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    So, we have radya and skanking advocating the use of the roads by people who do not have the appropriate safety skills. And, in some cases, justifying this by saying that we allow motorists to do so.

  12. #437
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    So, we have radya and skanking advocating the use of the roads by people who do not have the appropriate safety skills. And, in some cases, justifying this by saying that we allow motorists to do so.
    This is all really beside the point. You are discussing this issue with experienced cyclists here, and support for your anti-facilities position is certainly not unanimous among the experienced cyclists, in fact y'all appear to be in the minority.

  13. #438
    Senior Member Paul L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    My Bikes
    Mercier Corvus (commuter), Fila Taos (MTB), Trek 660(Got frame for free and put my LeMans Centurian components on it)
    Posts
    2,601
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    So, we have radya and skanking advocating the use of the roads by people who do not have the appropriate safety skills. And, in some cases, justifying this by saying that we allow motorists to do so.

    Yes, isn't it wonderful? None of us needs to be a perfect driver to be allowed the opportunity to drive a car. Just like no one has to be a perfect linquist to contribute to these forums. Or have a doctorate of Philosophy to argue with you or Helmet Head. No one needs to be the perfect cyclist to use the roads. Yes, in fact, in a world of imperfect people, by necessity, those without a perfect command of safety are allowed to live and make do the best they can. Even the Airline industry can't get completly perfect pilots.

    Although they come the closest out of the industries I think.
    Sunrise saturday,
    I was biking the backroads,
    lost in the moment.

  14. #439
    Non-Custom Member zeytoun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    My Bikes
    1975-1980 SR road bike
    Posts
    1,613
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So, we have radya and skanking advocating the use of the roads by people who do not have the appropriate safety skills. And, in some cases, justifying this by saying that we allow motorists to do so.
    Are you in favor of a government run bicycle licensing program?
    I am a mutated sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate and mutate, blah!.

  15. #440
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul L.
    On this particular ride all the turns were right turns and there didn't happen to be any right hand turn lanes we had to negotiate past. As far as doing a full VC merge, I will admit I don't think they are up to that. At those intersections we would likely dismount and use the crosswalk.

    I was riding with a mirror and was letting them know when traffic was approaching.
    Just to be clear, what I'm considering an intersection is ANY place someone could turn right (driveway, parking lot, dirt road, etc.). Anyway, I'm glad you are able to enjoy rides like that with your children. If they are able to ride in a straight line, I see no reason why you and the bunch could not have used a full traffic lane on that road. And honestly, at full speed or with very heavy traffic, I'd consider that shoulder/bike lane to be of marginal width due to the gutter pan.

  16. #441
    Senior Member rando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    2,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zeytoun
    Are you in favor of a government run bicycle licensing program?
    Probably. but only if they include training that uses "Effective Cycling" as a manual.

    "Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen

    Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me

  17. #442
    Senior Member rando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    2,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    sorry. carry on.
    "Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen

    Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me

  18. #443
    Al noisebeam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    AZ
    My Bikes
    Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
    Posts
    13,974
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul L.
    Dang, I tried I really tried not to bite on this one but just for the sake of debate, is the 100 foot long section of street in front of my house called a highway? I know what you are getting at though. We are arguing semantics in a forum that should be about Advocacy and Safety so I will stop at this point.
    Well since you live in AZ:
    http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/01171.htm
    "1. "Highway" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained by the federal government, the department, a city, a town or a county if any part of the way is generally open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel."

    I didn't have any question as to what JF meant when he used the term above.

    Al

  19. #444
    Infamous Member chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    My Bikes
    Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
    Posts
    24,373
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's time for me to go home to dinner, but I'd like to address this before I do, knowing that you probably don't have time to sit and participate in this discussion all day and night.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    Interesting suggestion that the issues of bicycle transportation should be resolved by superstition. Of course, that is what has been done, and that superstition is exactly what vehicular cyclists oppose.
    I'm not suggesting anything, merely pointing out reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    In answer to your question, I first answer that the conditions postulated in your hypothetical question are most unlikely to exist. Please note that all my discussions are based on transportational cycling. Recreational cycling is an entirely different issue. Transportational cycling needs to be evaluated in accordance with the safety, convenience, and travel time required to get from anywhere in town to anywhere else in town. (Well, maybe not from one den of iniquity to another, but you get the idea.) You postulate conditions in which the majority rules according to its belief that bikeways make cycling safe for unskilled bicyclists (that is the reason most often given) but they are willing to allow a minority to ride on the roadways in a vehicular manner. One thing wrong about that is that no bikeway system can provide safe travel throughout town for people without vehicular cycling skills. That is the opposite of the conditions that you postulate. In other words, are you willing to advocate that people without the proper skills ride around town? I say that that is immoral.
    Transportational and recreational cycling, while they may have different goals, are both relevant. Without the masses of recreational cyclists, transportational cycling is doomed to the insignificance (in the context of political power) it suffered between the 1920s and 1970s. My discussions are based on cycling as a whole, which includes all cyclists, from the political standpoint that you seek to influence, not from a narrow technical perspective. Remember, John, it was you that has made the two so intertwined into vehicular cycling.

    The conditions I postulated have and do exist. It's called compromise and lives within our political system, where the norm is for people with different interests to come together to achieve a common goal, even if they have no interest or even disagree with the all the individual goals of others involved that are included in the whole. You wash my back, I wash yours - if you don't want to wash mine, yours isn't getting washed either.

    You maintain that bikeways 'cannot provide safe travel throughout town for people without vehicular cycling skills', yet they do every single day. Are they 'totally safe' - of course not, just as roadways are not totally safe, vc skills or no vc skills. Are all cyclists 'competent' vehicular cyclists? Nope, even many who claim to be vehicular cyclists routinely break not only the law, but also the 'rules' of vehicular cycling and have no problem admitting it....yet both the vehicular cyclists and others manage to get from point A to point B safely each and every day. It's riding a bike, John, it's not rocket science no matter how hard you try to portray it as such. There is nothing immoral about encouraging people to ride without testing them for some arbitrary level of competence - unless you want to force them to ride in traffic, which is what you propose. Indeed, how do you expect to ensure that all cyclists are competent vehicular cyclists...mandatory training, licensing? Unless you advocate the former at minimum, there will always be cyclists who do not practice vc. Oh well, that's where we are today and cycling is still one of the safest physical activities that one can do. How to you explain away that little reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    Urban sidepaths are extremely dangerous, except in the few topographically favorable situations that cannot provide much transportation. Are you willing to have people use these at the increased rate of car-bike collision that they create? The statistics for that are in Wachtel's paper.

    Bike lanes are somewhat different, in that competent cyclists can ride on roadways under social conditions in which the cyclist can ignore the presence of the stripe. However, when the majority says that the stripe makes cycling safe, it is more difficult socially to ignore the stripe, and the stripe makes cycling more difficult, and therefore more dangerous, for those who do not recognize the importance of ignoring the stripe but, instead, follow the majority opinion, enforced by the governmental action in painting the stripe, of obeying the stripe. It takes more skill to know when and how to disobey the stripe than it does to ride properly without the stripe.

    Furthermore, any society that puts its faith in bikeways will also put its money into bikeways. The chances of getting good roads in a bikeway-believing society are rather small.
    I don't suppose you want to compare total federal, state and local spending on highways, roads and bridges compared to bikeways, do you? I didn't think so. You keep treating this as a EITHER-OR proposition - it is not. Money goes into both bikeways and roads every day, just like people ride their bicycles on both the roadways and bikeways everyday...and somehow the vast majority survive.

    I think I understand where you are coming from, since we both have techincal backgrounds, albeit in different fields. You want perfection, you want the system to be 'right' and are not fond of compromises that make the system less than it could be. I know the feeling...but I've learned over the years to look at the big picture and accept that nothing is ever perfect, everything is a compromise - we do the best we can do to make the system the best that we can, but in the end we don't stop the works in the name of perfection. You're older than me and have been involved in politics from an advocacy level, I would expect you would have learned that by now as well.

    I gotta go home and eat my dinner, now, but I'll be back...forgive me if I rushed and didn't address all of your points.
    "Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey

  20. #445
    Senior Member Paul L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    My Bikes
    Mercier Corvus (commuter), Fila Taos (MTB), Trek 660(Got frame for free and put my LeMans Centurian components on it)
    Posts
    2,601
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    Just to be clear, what I'm considering an intersection is ANY place someone could turn right (driveway, parking lot, dirt road, etc.). Anyway, I'm glad you are able to enjoy rides like that with your children. If they are able to ride in a straight line, I see no reason why you and the bunch could not have used a full traffic lane on that road. And honestly, at full speed or with very heavy traffic, I'd consider that shoulder/bike lane to be of marginal width due to the gutter pan.

    Yeah, I can't say it is a model of bikelanes. On the bikes they ride speeds above 9 or 10 mph are not really a reality (not that it isn't legal to ride slow and take the lane, I just prefer to be moving a little closer to the speed of speed of traffic than a jog when I do). We do in fact have a rather goofy bike lane in our neighborhood where they have tried to integrate a bike lane and a parking lane and it is so wide the boys have a tendency to meander around in it unless I am right there reminding them to ride straight so I suppose a 4 foot wide lane is probably optimal for the need I am espousing.

    I am tryinig to work with them on not hugging the gutter though and each of them has had experience with why they should not hug the gutter. Just have to keep helping them remember that.
    Last edited by Paul L.; 03-15-07 at 05:42 PM.
    Sunrise saturday,
    I was biking the backroads,
    lost in the moment.

  21. #446
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    2,209
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    So, we have radya and skanking advocating the use of the roads by people who do not have the appropriate safety skills. And, in some cases, justifying this by saying that we allow motorists to do so.

    I said no such thing. I said it doesn't make sense to oppose well-constructed and maintained bike paths when some cyclists do not have the appropriate safety skills to use the roads and probably won't learn them. I was quite clear on that. I don't see how a reasonable person engaged in an honest debate could construe that statement to mean that I am "the use of the roads by people who do not have the appropriate safety skills."

  22. #447
    Senior Member Paul L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    My Bikes
    Mercier Corvus (commuter), Fila Taos (MTB), Trek 660(Got frame for free and put my LeMans Centurian components on it)
    Posts
    2,601
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by noisebeam
    Well since you live in AZ:
    http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/01171.htm
    "1. "Highway" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained by the federal government, the department, a city, a town or a county if any part of the way is generally open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel."

    I didn't have any question as to what JF meant when he used the term above.

    Al

    Highway it is! At least until I cross the state line .
    (of course I guess that depends on which state line it is though).


    This gives me food for thought though. Does that mean 4 year olds should not ride bikes on any street maintained with public money for public use? AND if so, what is the permissable age that children suddenly are "supposed" to use the street/highway?
    Last edited by Paul L.; 03-15-07 at 05:43 PM.
    Sunrise saturday,
    I was biking the backroads,
    lost in the moment.

  23. #448
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    I don't suppose you want to compare total federal, state and local spending on highways, roads and bridges compared to bikeways, do you? I didn't think so. You keep treating this as a EITHER-OR proposition - it is not. Money goes into both bikeways and roads every day, just like people ride their bicycles on both the roadways and bikeways everyday...and somehow the vast majority survive.
    From a funding and spending perspective, Oregon has a bicycle bill that for the last 30+ years has required transportation projects to spend at least 1% of their budgets on bicycle improvements. For the most part the 1% spending goal has not been met on most projects - the vast majority of the money is spent on highway projects designed to primarily benefit motorists, many of which are either inaccessible or inhospitable to bicyclists - yet nevertheless plenty of bicycle 'facilities' have been built, without affecting the ability to fund and construct motor vehicle-oriented highway projects whatsoever.

  24. #449
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    2,209
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    I'm not suggesting anything, merely pointing out reality.Transportational and recreational cycling, while they may have different goals, are both relevant. Without the masses of recreational cyclists, transportational cycling is doomed to the insignificance (in the context of political power) it suffered between the 1920s and 1970s. My discussions are based on cycling as a whole, which includes all cyclists, from the political standpoint that you seek to influence, not from a narrow technical perspective. .

    Indeed, In addition, I would venture to guess that most cyclists that post here, like myself, who use the bicycle as a means of transportation, became interested in it BECAUSE OF recreational riding. I'll be the first to admit that I was utterly clueless when I first started. But through recreation, I developed a love of cycling that imbued me with a desire to learn as much as I could about cycling. The more I learned, the more comfortable I became. The more comfortable and knowledgable I became the more willing I was to use the roads and cycle "vehicularly." There wouldn't be many people using cycling as a means of transportation in this country if there were not adequate "recreational cycling facilities" as you use the term. If developing more "recreational facilities" with get others interested in cycling, form the impetus to learn the appropriate skills to ride in traffic, and make them feel comfortable enough to develop and hone those skills, then I can't see how one can oppose them.

  25. #450
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    There is nothing immoral about encouraging people to ride without testing them for some arbitrary level of competence - unless you want to force them to ride in traffic, which is what you propose.
    I'm enjoying the discussion here but wanted to comment on this one line as I feel it's very important to realize. Whether you are riding in the lane, in a bike lane, or on a sidepath, you are riding in traffic. At some point in time, you and the other vehicles using the roadway are going to cross paths and if you don't know how to handle that conflict, you shouldn't be out there. I feel it is immoral for bike lane/sidepath advocates to encourage people to use those facilities under the false assumption that they are no longer part of traffic and thus are freed from the obligations they have to protect their own safety. Reference any thread about riding in a bike lane or on a sidewalk/sidepath and being right hooked for confirmation that some (the majority?) of cyclists using those facilities don't truly understand that they are still part of traffic and need to be aware of what's going on around them.

Page 18 of 57 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •